Thoughts on Wind and Truth. SPOILERS

[Ironwill2112 he/him]

So I really enjoyed WaT. But apparently nobody else did. I get that some of the dialogue isn't as good as it was in the previous books but it wasn't THAT bad was it? To be fair though I am not well read, and don't have a lot to compare it to. Most of what I have read is Brandon Sanderson. 

So did y'all like Wind and Truth?

[Aeoryi she/her]

unfortunately, Wind and Truth really didn't feel like another Way of Kings, another Words of Radiance, another Oathbringer, or another Rhythm of war. Yes it was good, but it wasn't outstanding compared to any of the four books before it. And I totally get it- there were very high expectations going into reading it. 

There were some parts of wind and Truth that I really really liked, including

Spoiler

the ending where El guts a fused and Venli outsmarts Odium

kaladin becoming an herald

Szeth getting an ending that gave him peace, not godhood 

All of the shinovar stuff & flashback scenes

Seeing the oathpact and the arrival on roshar

Mraize versus shallan

I could go on. But there were a lot of things that didn't feel great. For example the usage of the word "therapist" or the kinda confusing ending to the much anticipated contest of champions that left much feeling empty. (I also had to reread it multiple times to understand what happened)

There also sometimes felt like there was just... too much going on at once. At lot of the stuff with the dawnshards felt somewhat out of place in the book and having five different characters in the spiritual realm kinda just made it a "why have multiple" kind of deal. 

Either way the book was actually quite good overall. The quality is definitely there. Just it's missing that little bit of extra... bonus good feeling that really has become signature to the stormlight archive

[Frustration]

WaT overall was decent, I'd say better than 60% of the books I've read.

But most of the rest of SA was 90% or more.

WaT had the potential to be good, but it had so much weighing it down that if it wasn't for the cosmere attached to it, I honestly don't know if I would be excited for SA6.

1. The Dialogue was really bad, even for Brandon
2. The characters all felt off, except for Shallan of all people, who is usually the worst offender for this
3. Too many characters given PoVs that they didn't need
4. Related to number 3 the Rlain/Renarin subplot was a lot of added bloat that didn't contribute to the story as it should have. I know Brandon was setting up for book 6 there, but it could easily have been left for book 6.
5. The contest sucked. I remember when Gavilnor was first theorized, and thinking: that would suck. And I was right. I also remember thinking that Brandon would be too smart to do that, but I was wrong there. Massive letdown for three books of buildup.
6. Brandon still isn't funny. A chull head? Really?
7. Plot holes. So many plot holes.
8. Zero consequences. Like absolutely none. Adolin loses his leg, but gets a prostetic one that's just as good, Dalinar dies, and that's it. Nothing else bad happens.
9. The combat was really mid. Like Adolin and Szeth had some good fights, but where's the equivalent to Kaladin at the battle of the tower, or Adolin vs. Four shardbearers, or Kaladin vs. Amaram?
10. The villains were all terrible. Stormlight never had great antagonists, but all the villains here were bad even by SA standards.

[GG0z He/Him]

It was good nonetheless. No matter what anyone says, it was a good book 

[Deception He/Him]

The unnecessary POVs were annoying, but I think overall the book was great. 

[Frustration]

For the people who liked it what in particular would you say made it good?

[Aeoryi she/her]

10 minutes ago, Frustration said:

For the people who liked it what in particular would you say made it good?

It is stormlight archive. It has characters we love.

[Through the Living Wrath he/him]

4 hours ago, Frustration said:

For the people who liked it what in particular would you say made it good?

I thought it was cool.

 

I think the ending was very very very satisfying

the action was cool

and yeah

[Grubfriend He/Him]

The Shattered plains plot was killing me. It wasn’t doing much and I wanted more Shinovar content.

People poisoned the well on Shallan by that point, so I couldn’t enjoy her chapters and the secret agent stuff.

Reneiran and Rlain. I wish they were friends, they fit as misfits and it so works, but I feel like the relationship was shoehorned in.

I liked Shinovar, felt like Kaladin tried to hard to connect with Szeth, but and I want Nightblood to get his own book so bad now.

[GG0z He/Him]

7 minutes ago, Through The Living Grub said:

The Shattered plains plot was killing me. It wasn’t doing much and I wanted more Shinovar content.

People poisoned the well on Shallan by that point, so I couldn’t enjoy her chapters and the secret agent stuff.

Reneiran and Rlain. I wish they were friends, they fit as misfits and it so works, but I feel like the relationship was shoehorned in.

I liked Shinovar, felt like Kaladin tried to hard to connect with Szeth, but and I want Nightblood to get his own book so bad now.

Warbreaker

[Ink and Embers Any pronouns]

On 6/10/2026 at 5:44 PM, Frustration said:

For the people who liked it what in particular would you say made it good?

I liked the pacing (I just thought it was really fun); I liked Kaladin's and Adolin's character arcs specifically; I really liked getting to learn about Rosharan history; and I generally had a fun time reading it even if retrospectively it could've been better in places

[Schizoposting]

I think that the reason why people hate Wind and Truth, is because it's a deconstruction of the Stormlight Archive as whole—for instance, instead of having epic fights, Kaladin spends his time healing others. And instead of having a grand triumphant victory, the ending concludes with an ignoble defeat, with it turning out, that Honor is no better than Odium.

While no book is perfect, I think that it's overall, a very strong book. Primary, for its themes, but I also liked its pacing, prose, the lack of bloat compared to previous books, and it had some excellent moments, like the prologue, the debate, Honor's flashbacks, Kaladin's duel with Nale, the contest of champions etc. The biggest weakness however, in my opinion, would be the Adolin plot line, which was extremely predictable, and generic, although it was by no means bad. 

Overall, I'd say that Wind and Truth is the third best book in the series, only behind The Way of Kings, and Words of Radiance.

[Returned he/him]

A lot of the major points of contention have already been mentioned, so I'll add that there is a lot of great stuff in WaT but that the execution was poor. Lots of great individual moments but poor connections and structure between them. Especially when compared with other SA books. A lot of stuff is technically there, in a check-the-box sense, but it was a less elegantly written book than the earlier volumes (a problem I feel has been increasing across Cosmere books, generally).

Judged only by itself, it's maybe a 3 star book, 4 depending on personal taste and generosity. Judged as a SA book against the other four, it's probably more firmly a 3. Judged as a SA book and the scope of expectations it set up, I'd rate it as a 2.x. "Fine" is a damning assessment of a book which caps a well-regarded flagship series.

• A lot of the dialogue was weak, but more significant for me was how much most characters speak in the same way now. Gaz and Shallan should speak differently, and they used to. Characterization suffered a lot, particularly in more subtle writing that the previous books had.
• There was filler and bloat which was mechanically imposed. People can argue about what constitutes "filler", but it became clear long before the climactic portion of the book that none of the separate plot threads were going to resolve, or even change much, before the others-- the fighting at the Shattered Plains was not going to be over any sooner nor any later than the fight in Azir, nor the spiritual realms exposition, nor anything else. It drained a lot of the tension and investment to know that none of the characters' situations were going to really change for the next few hundred pages.
• The buildup for plot events was enormous, but much of what actually happened was pretty flat in comparison. El's huge, game-changing stratagem for which Taravangian was willing to pay such a high price was... bring more soldiers to the front (and it failed!). The contest ended up being a pretty minor and dull event. Some of that is by design, I think, as its conclusion was meant to repudiate the cycles of violence and conquest that had governed Roshar since the Desolations began. But it also lacked a lot of strong narration-- there weren't moments like Kaladin leaping onto the Tower, or Dalinar walking alone out of Thaylenah with only a book in his hands.
• Exposition dumps abounded. Dalinar and Navani's stories over almost the entire book were nothing but watching a historical documentary about Roshar, and that also removed them from events.
• The Shinovar portion was just a tunnel, with Kaladin and Szeth moving from points A to B to C to D to E (etc.). Few, if any, decisions for the characters to make, few surprises, little suspense. The fight sequences were cool and exciting. But I really expected more than that for two of the series' most important and dynamic characters-- in terms of character development and depth of presentation, there was nothing for them on par with Way of Kings or Words of Radiance.
• A lot of the novelty and creativity about Radiant powers had already been used or was already reserved for future revelations, and the power inflation of characters had already reached extreme levels. That's not the book's fault, but it still makes for a rougher comparison to other SA books. And some characters were just removed from the field entirely.

There is a lot to like about WaT, and I suspect I will enjoy it more on re-reads than I did during my first pass. I don't think that anyone who loves it is wrong to do so, but I don't think that it should be that shocking that others feel differently. There's quite a bit of rough around the gems, though the gems are as valuable as they ever were.

Edited 5 hours ago by Returned

[Frustration]

23 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

lack of bloat compared to previous books,

While two people can disagree as to what is bloat and what isn't I have to ask how WaT is low on bloat compared to the other entries?

[Schizoposting]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

While two people can disagree as to what is bloat and what isn't I have to ask how WaT is low on bloat compared to the other entries?

The page space is used a lot more efficiently compared to the other Stomlight books: in WaT there are ten different plotlines going on simultaneously, while in something like RoW or OB literally nothing happens for the first half of the book. 

1 hour ago, Returned said:

There is a lot to like about WaT, and I suspect I will enjoy it more on re-reads than I did during my first pass. I don't think that anyone who loves it is wrong to do so, but I don't think that it should be that shocking that others feel differently. There's quit a bit of rough around the gems, though the gems are as valuable as they ever were.

Some of these criticisms are fair, but most of them are not particularly unique to WaT—the Stormlight archive has always been bloated, and dialogue has never been Brandon's strong suite. While some of the backlash has undoubtedly been amplified by the dynamics of fandom, for many people there's something fundamental that didn't work in WaT. And the reason, I think, is quite simply that Brandon abandoned the classic Stormlight formula used in the first three books of the series. Which is why he (correctly) anticipated that the book would be very controversial. 

[Frustration]

27 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

The page space is used a lot more efficiently compared to the other Stomlight books: in WaT there are ten different plotlines going on simultaneously, while in something like RoW or OB literally nothing happens for the first half of the book. 

I'd argue that literally nothing happened until the last 20 something pages of WaT. If I had to say what changed from the start to the end of OB I'd have to talk about a lot, RoW would have less, but it would still have some. On the other hand, with the exception of Moash, Kharbranth, the Listeners and Theylenah, each of which occurred in a single chapter or Interlude and were relatively minor, I honestly can't think of anything in WaT until the contest of Champions.

32 minutes ago, Schizoposting said:

Some of these criticisms are fair, but most of them are not particularly unique to WaT—the Stormlight archive has always been bloated, and dialogue has never been Brandon's strong suite. While some of the backlash has undoubtedly been amplified by the dynamics of fandom, for many people there's something fundamental that didn't work in WaT. And the reason, I think, is quite simply that Brandon abandoned the classic Stormlight formula used in the first three books of the series. Which is why he (correctly) anticipated that the book would be very controversial. 

You've said this a lot and I have to disagree. While dialogue has never been Brandon's strong suite("Stretch forth thine hand" and Kaladin and Shallan arguing in WoR come to mind), WaT was particularly bad. I honestly don't think bloat became an issue until OB, and it has gotten worse since then. The change in formula might have had a part to play but other than yourself I've never seen anyone complain about it.

[Schizoposting]

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

I'd argue that literally nothing happened until the last 20 something pages of WaT. If I had to say what changed from the start to the end of OB I'd have to talk about a lot, RoW would have less, but it would still have some. On the other hand, with the exception of Moash, Kharbranth, the Listeners and Theylenah, each of which occurred in a single chapter or Interlude and were relatively minor, I honestly can't think of anything in WaT until the contest of Champions.

I think that it's indisputable that far more happens in WaT, per page, than in the other entries of the series. But if you don't think so, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

You've said this a lot and I have to disagree. While dialogue has never been Brandon's strong suite("Stretch forth thine hand" and Kaladin and Shallan arguing in WoR come to mind), WaT was particularly bad. I honestly don't think bloat became an issue until OB, and it has gotten worse since then. The change in formula might have had a part to play but other than yourself I've never seen anyone complain about it.

To be clear, I am not opposed to the change in formula—actually, it's one of the best parts of the book. However, I am well aware that defending WaT is a rather unpopular opinion, to say the least. So, there has to be some reason why so many people disliked it. While there were many different (sometimes contradictory) complaints about the book, most people are very bad at understanding why like certain things over others beyond the purely superficial: if people find the plot boring, or are disappointed by the ending, the real question is why they feel these things. That's why any serious critique has go deeper than simply complaining about the "modern language".

And to be honest, I can't really take credit for this specific critique, since I more or less got it from Brandon himself:

Spoiler

Brandon Sanderson

...

But the book's supposed to be a kick to the face, and if we don't have a kick to the face then the Stormlight Archive as a series doesn't work as I have planned that arc. And it's rough because I couldn't prepare anyone for it. I told Peter, "So this book's gonna come out, this is the point—if I'm ever going to have a point where my career could collapse, it is this book. I know what fans want, and I did not give it to them." And this is the first time in my career that I just didn't give it to them. You could argue that I didn't give you Kaladin's oath at the end of Oathbringer, but I just delayed that and gave it to you in Book 4. In this book, I just said, "No, I've [not] given them what they want and I know what they want, and that's going to be hard. It's going to be really hard both for me, and for them."

And the real trick and the kind of punch is, I've never done this before. So my artistic instincts say this is what's right, and I'm going with them. It could be wrong, right? This could be the thing that in twenty years, I'm like, "Oh man, I should've written another book that has the same emotional arc as Books 1, 2 and 3, rather than taking Books 4 and 5 and changing it up so much." And maybe we'll do this interview and be like, "Well, I was the biggest selling fantasy author in the world and then I refused to give readers what they wanted, selfishly and arrogantly, and I really should've just done it." But we'll see. What I've always been saying is, "We will know if this book's a success in seven or eight years, not in seven or eight weeks like we've done with all the other books."

...

Like I said I think in a post at some point—when a symphony goes atonal, all of a sudden, unexpectedly, and it seems like nails on a chalkboard. I'm looking for a little bit of that with this book, and that's super dangerous! And maybe stupid.

So, that's what the conversation is. I did that intentionally. We'll see if it's the right idea.

Shardcast Interview (May 25, 2025)

It's certainly possible that he's wrong, but we should still give his opinion some weight, given that he's the author and likely understands the series more than pretty much anybody. But even if we embrace the death of the author, and completely disregard his opinion, I still think that this explanation works far better than any other at explaining why so many people took issue with WaT. (The effect of fandom on "the Discourse" is an entirely different matter.)

[Returned he/him]

22 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Some of these criticisms are fair, but most of them are not particularly unique to WaT—the Stormlight archive has always been bloated, and dialogue has never been Brandon's strong suite. While some of the backlash has undoubtedly been amplified by the dynamics of fandom, for many people there's something fundamental that didn't work in WaT. And the reason, I think, is quite simply that Brandon abandoned the classic Stormlight formula used in the first three books of the series. Which is why he (correctly) anticipated that the book would be very controversial. 

A critique of WaT is not valid only if it is unique to that book; if features are detrimental, they are detrimental, possibly in other books as well. Further, I disagree that they are not focused on WaT in particular. I suspect that we disagree on what constitutes "bloat" and doubt that we'll resolve that. My complaint about dialogue was not that it is bad, in WaT or in all Cosmere books, but that it has changed in WaT so that most characters speak far more similarly than they used to.

I'm on the fence about the change-from-formula argument. On the one hand, I agree that it happened and was clearly intentional, and I'm sure that it, in itself, bothered at least some people. On the other, just being different from the structure of previous books doesn't necessarily involve the newer structure being good (or having any number of other qualities or meeting any number of other goals). They aren't tightly coupled: it's possible to maintain a structure and also write a good book, and possible to change a structure and also write a bad book. There is no accounting for individual taste, but even so it is totally possible for people to dislike WaT for reasons other than its structure diverging from other SA entries. 

It's one thing to say he knows a book will be controversial because he is subverting or disappointing expectations in service of some goal (even if we don't know what that goal is right now), and we'll have to see how this book fits in with later entries to truly evaluate it. I'm willing to wait and see with an open mind on that, even if I would have preferred a book that can stand on its own a bit better in the process. It's quite another thing to say, six months after release and mixed reception, that he meant all along to disappoint readers and so he nailed it, therefore the book is great.

It's interesting that you give Sanderson a pass on explaining that he intentionally changed the structure in a way that would disappoint without expressing what he intended to accomplish by doing so ("my artistic instincts say this is what's right"), but brush aside readers' comments about what they disliked as wrong unless they explain why to some unspecified degree (people are bad at understanding what they like, so my response by default is to reject their complaints). It seems easier to me to accept that WaT might be a weaker book than other SA volumes in ways that many readers value, and therefore many don't like it as much as those other volumes, than it is to accept that readers can't understand what they like and so being disappointed by a book that was written specifically to not give them what they want is evidence that it's great because if they knew what they liked they wouldn't have been so disappointed with the book that was written to disappoint them. Those are some rough convolutions. There is even room for both of those, especially with such a large fan base, but I think concluding that most of the dislike of the book is shallow and wrongheaded is too dismissive.

Edited Saturday at 05:06 PM by Returned

[Schizoposting]

9 hours ago, Returned said:

It's interesting that you give Sanderson a pass on explaining that he intentionally changed the structure in a way that would disappoint without expressing what he intended to accomplish by doing so ("my artistic instincts say this is what's right"), but brush aside readers' comments about what they disliked as wrong unless they explain why to some unspecified degree (people are bad at understanding what they like, so my response by default is to reject their complaints). It seems easier to me to accept that WaT might be a weaker book than other SA volumes in ways that many readers value, and therefore many don't like it as much as those other volumes, than it is to accept that readers can't understand what they like and so being disappointed by a book that was written specifically to not give them what they want is evidence that it's great because if they knew what they liked they wouldn't have been so disappointed with the book that was written to disappoint them. Those are some rough convolutions. There is even room for both of those, especially with such a large fan base, but I think concluding that most of the dislike of the book is shallow and wrongheaded is too dismissive.

Quite frankly, the popularity (or lack of thereof) of a given work has very little to do with its artistic merit—the only way to determine whether a book is good or bad is through literary critique. The problem with the main complaints about WaT, is that they one-sidedly criticize the form (e.g. the prose), while disregarding the content; any serious critique has to consider the interrelation between the two, with the latter being the more important aspect. (Incidentally, that's why a lot of literary fiction is bad—a fetishism of form over content.)

The reason why I like WaT, is because of the way it challenges the assumptions and biases of the earlier books: at the beginning the series starts with a rather naive conception of a struggle between a benevolent Honor and an evil Odium; of course, this is complicated by the fact that the Almighty is dead, the Alethi are terrible, Humans are the real aggressors, and so forth (which is why the earlier books are good)—but broadly, the point still stands. But in WaT, this notion is completely overturned: Honor is just as bad as Odium, Dalinar is a tyrant, and the coalition abandons him as soon as they get a better deal; the entire contest turns out to be a farce, etc. 

Naturally, this is going to upset the people, who feel attached to ideals being deconstructed, which happens to be a substantial part of the fandom. But since these people are not truly capable of the literary analysis to articulate why WaT discomforts them, they randomly latch on to superficial details that they did not like and fetishize them as being the reason why they feel this way. Combine this with the dynamics of fandom, and internet "hyperreality", and you get the sort of backlash that WaT got.

[Frustration]

5 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Quite frankly, the popularity (or lack of thereof) of a given work has very little to do with its artistic merit—the only way to determine whether a book is good or bad is through literary critique.

And why is that?

5 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

The problem with the main complaints about WaT, is that they one-sidedly criticize the form (e.g. the prose), while disregarding the content; any serious critique has to consider the interrelation between the two, with the latter being the more important aspect. (Incidentally, that's why a lot of literary fiction is bad—a fetishism of form over content.)

Just because you prefer one to the other doesn't mean that your way of viewing things is correct.

5 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Naturally, this is going to upset the people, who feel attached to ideals being deconstructed, which happens to be a substantial part of the fandom. But since these people are not truly capable of the literary analysis to articulate why WaT discomforts them, they randomly latch on to superficial details that they did not like and fetishize them as being the reason why they feel this way. Combine this with the dynamics of fandom, and internet "hyperreality", and you get the sort of backlash that WaT got.

I don't think it's a good faith argument to say that anyone who dislikes WaT is incapable of articulating their own feelings and opinions.

Doubly so to assume you know why they actually feel a certain way better than they do.

[Grubfriend He/Him]

6 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

The reason why I like WaT, is because of the way it challenges the assumptions and biases of the earlier books: at the beginning the series starts with a rather naive conception of a struggle between a benevolent Honor and an evil Odium; of course, this is complicated by the fact that the Almighty is dead, the Alethi are terrible, Humans are the real aggressors, and so forth (which is why the earlier books are good)—but broadly, the point still stands. But in WaT, this notion is completely overturned: Honor is just as bad as Odium, Dalinar is a tyrant, and the coalition abandons him as soon as they get a better deal; the entire contest turns out to be a farce, etc. 

This overturning is a good part of the series. Accepting that the truth is more complication than one objective Truth was literally mentioned earlier in the series. 

 

6 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

But since these people are not truly capable of the literary analysis to articulate why WaT discomforts them, they randomly latch on to superficial details that they did not like and fetishize them as being the reason why they feel this way.

This feels like a huge assumption. A “feeling” that the book doesn’t sit well with you does not send every person incapable of literary analysis to randomly latch onto random details. Many people like specific sections and dislike others. Any reader can do this much without writing a complex analysis. Why is literally analysis required to determine someone’s opinion of a piece of media? Can I not say that the Shattered Plains arch felt like a copy of Azimir, and then conclude that it feels like padding and makes me dislike that part of the book?

6 hours ago, Schizoposting said:

Quite frankly, the popularity (or lack of thereof) of a given work has very little to do with its artistic merit—the only way to determine whether a book is good or bad is through literary critique. The problem with the main complaints about WaT, is that they one-sidedly criticize the form (e.g. the prose), while disregarding the content; any serious critique has to consider the interrelation between the two, with the latter being the more important aspect. (Incidentally, that's why a lot of literary fiction is bad—a fetishism of form over content.

Why is literary critique the “end all be all”, especially when the prose is included in a critique, but you say the content is more important. The popularity is the collective reaction of all readers’ opinions, regardless of how they word their opinions. Most complaints I have seen have said “Jasnah’s debate with Odium is simplistic and makes Jasnah seem stupid for not considering his responses” or “the Shattered Plains arc is a copy of Azimir that doesn’t stand out from its other and also poorly sets up Sigzil’s failure and makes his ending come out of nowhere and feel forced.”

Content judgement is not the problem. The problem is that certain parts ring hollow for certain individuals or groups, which is completely okay. Nothing Brandon has written is objectively perfect and is the absolute perfection of writing that all writers aim for, so we can safely say that he will mess up something, and with a book as large as WaT those sorts of mistakes pile up. The book is seen as flawed not because the masses tunnel vision on superficial details, but because they raise genuine issues with the writing.

[Nitpicking]

For all of his defenders: Brandon himself is on record as saying the book could have used another editing pass, for which there simply was not time. (Paraphrase.) It isn't the worst book written. It isn't even the worst Brandon Sanderson book.

It's just (for me and some others) the weakest book in the Stormlight Archive. And as a student of stories (e. g. a person who reads lots of stories), I think it has to be. "Middle book syndrome" is a well-known problem for trilogies, so "book five of a decology" is part of the issue for WaT: it's the end of Part One of the SA, so it has to have a conclusion, but also it's the middle of the SA, so Our Heroes have to still be in deep trouble for it to be a story.

[Ironwill2112 he/him]

On 6/12/2026 at 10:43 AM, Returned said:

There's quit a bit of rough around the gems, though the gems are as valuable as they ever were.

I really like how this was said.

 

Thanks for all the responses. Its been very interesting to see other povs on WaT. I am also a slow reader. It took me a long time to read the first 4 before I had to wait for WaT. (I finished OB right when RoW came out) So I am fuzzy when It comes to comparing dialogue and bloat and stuff like that. And I am not much of a critic. Especially with the things that I am fully invested in. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Ironwill2112

[Returned he/him]

On 6/13/2026 at 3:45 PM, Schizoposting said:

Quite frankly, the popularity (or lack of thereof) of a given work has very little to do with its artistic merit—the only way to determine whether a book is good or bad is through literary critique.

"Good" and "bad" are extremely subjective, as is artistic merit. While I agree that popularity is not a good metric for how worthwhile something is as a piece of art (which, for the record, also applies to one liking it as well as disliking it), it is absolutely a good metric for whether or not it is well liked, which is what the question "do you like WaT" in this thread actually asks.

On 6/13/2026 at 3:45 PM, Schizoposting said:

Naturally, this is going to upset the people, who feel attached to ideals being deconstructed, which happens to be a substantial part of the fandom. But since these people are not truly capable of the literary analysis to articulate why WaT discomforts them, they randomly latch on to superficial details that they did not like and fetishize them as being the reason why they feel this way. Combine this with the dynamics of fandom, and internet "hyperreality", and you get the sort of backlash that WaT got.

I agree that, if someone dislikes WaT and their only critique of it is that the dialogue was too modern, that seems like a thin reason to me. It may nevertheless be true: if someone doesn't like the book, and that's the reason, then they don't like it because of the dialogue. Just because we might be baffled at how that would ruin the book for them (I found the modernity to be pretty rare, though it did stick out) doesn't mean that it can't actually be the reason someone didn't like it. Some people are really frustrated that their preferred romantic pairings didn't happen, and if that alone leaves them disappointed in the book then that's the reason, even if it's something I happen not to care about at all. Telling people that they're wrong about why they didn't like something, and that the real reason they didn't like it can only be because they're shallow and stupid, isn't any less shallow than the critiques you refuse to entertain.

I'm sure that some people really did dislike WaT for reasons like you suggest. But it's an error to say that that's the only way people could dislike it. Comparing WaT to earlier SA entries, I found the writing to be less polished and more formulaic, the plotting and pacing less natural, the characterization far weaker, the dialogue worse (though not particularly due to being too modern), the development and presentation of themes and ideas far more crude and less intriguing, and the worldbuilding details less imaginative and less smoothly integrated into the narrative and prose. None of that makes the things the book does well any less good. But I think that the book could have accomplished everything you claim about it while also being better written than it was-- my issues are not about what the book was supposedly trying to do but rather about the execution of the attempt.

People may disagree with any or all of those opinions I hold, and even for those who do agree these items may not have detracted from their experience as much as they did mine. But others may feel similarly, or have other complaints that negatively impacted their enjoyment of the book. I'm glad that you liked it. It's really disrespectful and arrogant to tell others that they're too foolish and incompetent to appreciate the book or even know their own thoughts about it, based primarily on their not liking it so much. There is absolutely room for real critique, and disagreeing with your enthusiasm is not an impressive heuristic for dismissing that.

Edited 5 hours ago by Returned